Except these days the police arrest people (Jimmy Tarbuck, Freddie Starr, Paul Gambaccini, Jim Davidson) without any evidence and only later discover they are in fact innocent.In the old days you gathered the evidence first. I suppose that's what they call progress.
Actually I suspect you are 100% incorrect here. I am guessing the police DO have evidence it just isn't factually correct.
Actually I suspect you are 100% incorrect here. I am guessing the police DO have evidence it just isn't factually correct.
Rightly or wrongly the CPS & Police have changed their stance in such cases and anyone making a claim to the police is believed and any investigation is based on that.
Anyone making a claim is automatically regarded as a victim as demonstrated by the Yewtree report which was titled 'Giving Victims a Voice'. Many police forces have indicated reports of sexual assault have increased in recent years probably because victims now feel stronger reporting the matter.
In the Savile case there was a firm of solicitors that news media went to for interviews but was that firm impartial, was it actually seeing each interview as a free advert and the Savile claims firstly as a revenue stream?
It will be interesting to see if the media go through the claims involving the NHS an interesting one involves a Cardiff hospital....
The UHB has no reason to disbelieve patient A, but no documentary evidence could be found to show that she was in hospital in the CRI on or around New Years Eve 1963/1964 1964/1965 and no evidence could be found to show that JS visited the hospital in the 1960’s.
Meanwhile at a Portsmouth hospital.....
.... an allegation by an individual who said that he had been told that he had been abused by Jimmy Savile but that he, himself, had no recollection of the incident. The victim did not know the name of the witness to the alleged abuse who told him that it had occurred.
Investigators found apart from this incident 'there is no knowledge of him having visited the hospital on any other occasion.'
Actually I suspect you are 100% incorrect here. I am guessing the police DO have evidence it just isn't factually correct.
Sorry to be pedantic but if it's not factually correct then it's not evidence. I suspect you mean insufficient evidence to convince the CPS to prosecute.In the Bill Roache case it was clear much of the ''evidence'' had never been verified and the case fell apart (not helped by the fact the complainant referred to him as Ken Barlow throughout most of the proceedings !)
Comments
Actually I suspect you are 100% incorrect here. I am guessing the police DO have evidence it just isn't factually correct.
Rightly or wrongly the CPS & Police have changed their stance in such cases and anyone making a claim to the police is believed and any investigation is based on that.
Anyone making a claim is automatically regarded as a victim as demonstrated by the Yewtree report which was titled 'Giving Victims a Voice'. Many police forces have indicated reports of sexual assault have increased in recent years probably because victims now feel stronger reporting the matter.
In the Savile case there was a firm of solicitors that news media went to for interviews but was that firm impartial, was it actually seeing each interview as a free advert and the Savile claims firstly as a revenue stream?
It will be interesting to see if the media go through the claims involving the NHS an interesting one involves a Cardiff hospital....
Meanwhile at a Portsmouth hospital.....
Investigators found apart from this incident 'there is no knowledge of him having visited the hospital on any other occasion.'
Sorry to be pedantic but if it's not factually correct then it's not evidence. I suspect you mean insufficient evidence to convince the CPS to prosecute.In the Bill Roache case it was clear much of the ''evidence'' had never been verified and the case fell apart (not helped by the fact the complainant referred to him as Ken Barlow throughout most of the proceedings !)